北美考试院 托福写作组 王雨婷
本期考题与2018.10.13的综合写作考题内容重复。由此可见，历年考察过的真题被重复考察的可能性还是比较高的，考生平时备考时也可以以历年真题为材料进行备考练习。在《写作真经4》上可以找到这次考到的这篇阅读和听力原文材料。此次考察的话题属于托福综合写作考试中考频相对中等的考古学类的话题中关于人种起源分析的子话题。在TPO中有大量材料也涉及到了考古类相关话题，包括：TPO25, TPO27, TPO30,TPO32,TPO33, TPO44,TPO45。因此，TPO同样仍旧是考生备战综合写作，熟悉话题的重要资料。
Keywords: archaeology, possible cause of, origin, fossil, evidence, location.
可以类比下列这些TPO的综合写作。
TPO44 A fake silver coin
阅读部分：
总观点：在North America 的Maine Site发现了一枚可能来自Norse的银币，阅读认为这枚银币不太可能来自Norse。
• Norse在North America的居住地距离Maine Site很远；
• 在Norse的居住地Canadian Site没找到其他银币；
• 在North America，银币不能当货币使用。
听力反驳：
• 总论点：这些证据并不具有说服力
• 居住在Maine Site的人喜欢旅行，所有有可能去过Canadian Site，然后带回来银币；
• Norse并没有一直在North America 居住，所有当他们回欧洲的时候，把银币也打包带走了；
• Native America喜欢好看的东西，所以虽然不能当作货币，Silver Coin还是有其他的用途。
TPO45 Fossil structures not created by bees
阅读部分：
总观点：在Arizona州找到的有2亿年历史的structure不可能是蜜粉的巢穴
• 没有发现2亿年的蜜蜂化石；
• 没有蜜蜂赖以生存的有花植物在2亿年前存在；
• 这个structure缺少一些蜜蜂蜂巢的细节结构。
听力反驳：
总论点：阅读提出的证据并不convincing
• 因为2亿年前可以用来保存蜜蜂的化石还不存在；
• 蜜蜂可能以前依赖无花的植物生存；
• 这个structure有蜂巢独有的防水物质。
题目解析：
这次考题重复的是20171125的个人偏好类话题，讨论的是慈善的子话题，这类话题在历年真题中出现的较少。此题是一般观点分析类的问题，本篇文章选择反对该轮到主要有2点理由，即：这样的要求不公平同时也没有必要性。所以，本文采用四段论的结构，开头引入话题加观点陈述，两个主体段分别阐述原因并且举例进行论证，结尾段再次总结本人立场。
可参考如下范文：
As the economic development speed up, the accumulation of wealth become much easier. Nevertheless, individual’s approach and capacity to earn money varies, leading to imbalanced wealth distribution among diverse classes. It is argued by some that people who receive higher income should donate more to the charity, while I totally disagree with this point.
The first concept we should establish in mind when discussing this point is that whether or not an individual take the initiative to donate depends more on this personal choice not how much he earns. It is true that those who hold more assets have the capacity to contribute more to the society, but, fairly speaking, they still do not have the obligation to donate more. It is unfair for them if the government should legislate or the public should require that higher-income employees or wealthy businessman have to give away more money to the charity. After all, The reason why they are able to accumulate more property is that they have been working hard in gaining more knowledge, mastering more skill and contributing more time and effort to their own career. This kind of regulation or request, however, turns out to be more like a moral kidnapping, which seemly to be reasonable but actually compel people to do things that is not against objective reality or personal will. The way I see it, this requirement has nothing different from some commonly held wrong conceptions like giving top priority to seniority in every dimensions. Thus, asking the wealthy group to donate more is not fair.
Based on the point we have discussed above, we can go further to the purpose of charity. Charity is to provide basic support to the poor and eventually to help them form the ability to make a living by themselves. From this perspective, the money equally raised from each one from the society is generally enough to meet the rudimentary demand of the poor whereas there is no need for any group to donate more, even the wealthy ones. Financial support from the other groups is simply not enough for the poor to live on themselves. Instead of giving away more money directly to them, the wealthier group should have something more important to share, which is the way to be self-sufficient. For example, the higher-income employees can provide individual instruction for the poor on how to please a strict boss or how to mingle with colleagues. The wealthy business can provide more job opportunities, as well as, share their experience of creating a successful enterprise. Thus, for the poor, what is more valuable from the wealthy group is their experience and ability rather than money.
To conclude, the people who earn more money by their own efforts do not have the obligation or the necessity to donate more.
